[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.1) that established a 25-acre minimum lot size for thenorthern one-third of the county 91,000 acres and proposed the useof transferable development rights (TDRs) to partially compensate af-fected property owners.Later, receiving areas were identified in themaster plan to which development rights could be transferred, resultingin somewhat higher permitted densities. Figure 2.1Montgomery County plan/agland preservation area.The wedges and corridorsthat demarcate urbanized and agricultural areas in Montgomery County s Gen-eral Plan are shown in this map included in the most recent revision of theplan.(From General Plan Refinement, Goals and Objectives, prepared by theMontgomery County Planning Department, 1993, p.11.) 38 2.GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUESThis program was quite successful in lowering the political heat thatmight be expected from up-county property owners (especially after ajudge, in upholding the program, noted that the county legally couldhave downzoned without resorting to TDRs).The program did run intoconsiderable controversy in the neighborhoods selected to be upzoned by receiving added development rights.Nevertheless, by 1993 the pro-gram had set aside 30,000 acres for agriculture, protected from futuredevelopment.A 1988 report of the county council s Commission on theFuture strongly supported the continuation of the agricultural and openspace reserve, calling it Montgomery County s Central Park. The 1993report incorporating revisions to the general plan commented that the Wedge is as important today as it was 30 years ago.It is very muchthe green lung of Montgomery County. (p.7)In 1973, faced with mounting housing prices, the county adopted aninclusionary housing program requiring developers of 50 or more unitsof housing to set aside 15 percent of the units for low- and moderate-in-come housing.In return, developers could obtain an increase in permit-ted density.Although builders and developers grumbled about the pro-gram, the county amassed 9183 units of moderately priced housingthrough the program.Recently the program was modified to provide asliding scale of density bonuses related to the percentage of total unitsallocated to the program.In addition, the county has augmented pro-duction of moderately priced housing through other county-sponsoredaffordable housing programs.Its accessory housing zoning provisions,for example, authorized creation of 800 in-home accessory apartmentssince 1984.Reflecting a central theme of the general plan that called for focusingdevelopment along transportation corridors, Montgomery County haspursued aggressively the development of higher densities around Metro-rail stations.Of particular value in this effort was the creation of floatingzones that permit higher densities in some business areas subject to de-sign review and contributions of amenities.The zoning provisions havebeen applied particularly in rail/bus station areas to encourage transit-friendly development and a high order of design and appearance.Figure2.2 shows design parameters for buildings and spaces.The zoning incentives helped to focus a substantial amount of devel-opment around stations in Friendship Heights, Bethesda, Silver Spring,White Flint, and other business centers in the county, transformingrather drab business areas into a series of major suburban employmentand shopping centers.In Bethesda, millions of square feet of officespace and hundreds of residential units were developed within three orfour blocks of the Metrorail station during the 1980s.Within that area,zoning density options were subject to an overall development limit setby the sector plan and by traffic capacity measures, with the conse-quence that a beauty contest erupted to gain higher-density develop- THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PARADIGM 39Figure 2.2Bethesda urban design.In preparation for a development competition for atransit-station area in Bethesda, the Montgomery County urban design staffidentified key design characteristics for proposed buildings and spaces.The de-sign concept was followed in the final development.(From Bethesda MetroCenter Urban Design Study, prepared by the Maryland National Capital Parkand Planning Commission, 1980.)ment rights.Developers contributed a wide variety of public art, foun-tains, landscaping, and other amenities to obtain project approvals, inthe process gaining substantial density increases.(Developers, of course,prefer the latter without the former; many county residents have clam-ored for the former without the latter.)Consistency and Longevity.Over seven decades, Montgomery Countysteadily evolved an approach to growth management that has generallyprevailed over attempts to change its direction and import.Richard Tus- 40 2.GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUEStian, the county s planning director during the 1970s and 1980s, attri-butes this to four principal factors:" The endowment of status as a chartered county, coupled with attitudes ofstate courts that generously applied the fairly debatable rule, both ofwhich gave the county considerable latitude to develop its own planningapproach" The outlook and standards of early residents, many of whom came toWashington, D.C
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]